1951-11-23

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1952
[Stage Direction]


*
[Stage Direction]


Friday, November 23, 1951


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the question of privilege raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on Wednesday with respect to certain statements reported to have been made by the Minister of National Defence at Rotterdam the previous day. The information I have received from the Minister of National Defence is to the following effect:
It was of course known to the press that Canada would be having a brigade group and eleven squadrons in Europe, and that that would require accommodation and airfields. It was indicated in the house on October 22 by the Minister of National Defence that airfields and accommodation were not available on the continent, and that the first of our squadrons would have to be sent to England pending the construction of airfields. The minister's declaration is to be found at page 280 of Hansard for October 22.
It was also known that the cost of construction would have to be met, and that we in Canada have always said that we expected to contribute our share. It was also known that our effort had been to ensure that this would be done in a way to avoid our becoming direct owners of property in Europe. The minister states that at the press conference in Rotterdam he did not give any figure of $100 million or any figure at all; that in fact no new information was given except as to the number of airfields required for eleven squadrons; that that was a figure which is arrived at by dividing the number of squadrons by the capacity of an airfield; and that no other new information whatsoever was supplied.
There were two news Stories published in the Ottawa papers but our information is that one of those stories, at least in part, had been prepared before the press conference at Rotterdam. This matter is one that was covered by the communique of the NATO council meeting in Ottawa on September 20,
1951, and is referred to in paragraph 8 of that communique which reads as follows:
The council noted that agreement had been reached on the financing of an "infrastructure"-
That is a new word which is put between quotation marks.
-program of airfields, communications and certain installations for the support of forces. These projects will continue without delay.
I am satisfied that no new policy was announced, and that the minister would have been very careful not to announce any policy in that respect which had not been communicated to this house. It has been our firm intention, although this is something for which responsibility has to be taken by the government, to give full information to the house before attempting to carry out any decisions that are arrived at, in order that the house may have an opportunity of expressing its views upon the decisions and saying whether or not it is in agreement with those decisions.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what has been put before the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) does not adequately deal with the question of privilege which has been raised. The point of concern to the members of this house and to the people of Canada is the very ancient principle that the first responsibility of parliament is the control of money. It is not a question of whether members feel that they were slighted in not hearing about declarations of this kind first. The important thing is that neither the question of policy involving very heavy financial commitments, nor the undertaking to other nations through the press that we were going to make such commitments, should be made at any time without the elected representatives of the people in parliament deciding on such a point.
The Prime Minister has stated that he has been informed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that he did not use the figures in the press conference to which reference has been made. Naturally, the Prime Minister is in the position where he has presented to the Minister of National Defence the reports that have appeared, and to which reference has been made. In relation to the words that were used, may I say that they were not statements of mine but were reports appearing in the press which were referred to
127G

North Atlantic Treaty
in this house in the remarks that I made. The Prime Minister has given the interpretation placed on the interview by the Minister of National Defence. I must say it is difficult to grasp the explanation made by the Minister of National Defence that the Canadian Press report went beyond what he said. In the first place, the Canadian Press dispatch was one which carried the name of one of the most famous Canadian war reporters, who since the war has been dealing particularly with military matters. I believe that every hon. member of this house will approve of my statement that Mr. Douglas How is one of the most highly regarded members of the press gallery. He gave us a detailed account starting with the words:
Defence Minister Claxton said this morning in Rotterdam that Canada will foot the bill for the construction of four or five aerodromes in Europe.
Then, after explaining the fact that this statement was made at the time the Canadian 27th infantry brigade was being turned over to General Eisenhower, the report goes on:
The aerodromes, he said, will cost $100 million.
I would be very reluctant to believe that Mr. Douglas How would make a statement of that kind unless it had been made, but the thing that makes it difficult to accept the explanation of the minister in this respect is that a similar statement was carried by the British United Press. It is a strange coincidence that they believed also the statement had: been made in regard: to Canada paying the building costs. Furthermore, a similar dispatch was carried by the United Press in the United States, and by Associated Press in the United States and throughout the world.
I believe it may indicate how difficult it is to understand any suggestion that there was an extension of the minister's remarks when I read this paragraph from an Associated Press dispatch from Rotterdam, dated November 21, which appeared in the New York Herald Tribune on November 22:
Canadian defence minister Brooke Claxton said here today that Canada will build four or five new airstrips in western Europe to field an eleven squadron jet air division. He estimated the cost at $100 million.
It would indeed be a remarkable thing if at that press conference the representatives of several of the best known press agencies, for some reason, all introduced statements which had not actually been made by the minister. I would point out that in his remarks the Prime Minister has not referred to another statement, which was not made at Rotterdam but was made the day before, and which goes to this whole question as to whether or not statements of policy and commitments are being made outside of this

parliament without parliament previously knowing about them. An earlier dispatch from The Hague dated! November 20, and also signed by Mr. Douglas How of Canadian Press, contains a brief statement in regard to the arrival there of the Canadian contingent. Then it refers to the construction oi barracks in Germany, and it deals very definitely with where they are to be and what is to be done. It reads in part as follows:
Defence Minister Claxton announced last night that Canada is planning to erect permanent quarters for her 27th brigade in the Soest area of western Germany-a move which would put a garrison in that key area for any allied defence stand east of the Rhine.
Then further in that same dispatch I quote these words:
. . . the minister said the barracks will be built by Germans, the work to start in the next few months and be completed late next year.
Further on in the same dispatch I quote these words:
It is expected to cost between $5 million and $10 million.
That was a very definite statement of policy and commitment which has not been covered by the remarks of the Prime Minister, and which cannot be covered by any reference to the general statement of the Minister of National Defence of October 22, when he simply made a broad statement that aerodromes were not now available in Europe and in the meantime the squadrons were to be based in Britain, or any general reference to the fact that Canadian troops would be sent to Europe and trained there. Those are definite and positive statements which have appeared not only in Canada but in Europe and the United States.
I believe that this is a matter of considerable importance to all of us, having regard to the position in which we find ourselves in these difficult days. We should certainly be giving every assurance we can to our associates as to what we are doing. We certainly should be giving every assurance that we can as to our full participation in the joint effort for the preservation of peace and the defence of our western civilization. No word that I have used in reference to these dispatches can in any way be taken as a suggestion that I am objecting to Canada's accepting such responsibility as has been approved by this house and by the parliament of Canada. What I am pointing out is that statements of the Minister of National Defence at this particular time have more weight and are of greater importance than those of any other minister,, when they are taken in relationship to the place where they were made and to the circumstances under which they were made.

Naturally the people of Canada look to the Minister of National Defence to tell them the facts and to inform them with regard to the defence situation and the things that we are doing. The statement in regard to the construction of barracks and the statement in regard to the construction of airfields, and the cost of those barracks and of those airfields, are things about which every Canadian is naturally greatly interested. Most of all the elected representatives of the people sitting here in this house have an interest and a duty in connection with such statements. But his statements over there have gone further than that. In explaining what Canada was doing in connection with the air, I find that in another Canadian Press dispatch from Rotterdam there is a reference to the eleven squadrons and to the part they are going to play. I quote from a Canadian Press dispatch from Rotterdam, of November 21, referring to the statement of the Minister of National Defence:
Claxton told reporters that the production of Sabre jets at Montreal is the biggest phase of Canada's arms production. He said the Sabre can and does lick the Russian-built MIG-15 daily in Korea.
I think that those who have seen the Sabre jet in operation know that it is an immensely powerful aircraft with great speed. But I think that it is important to keep a sense of proportion in regard to these matters. I think the Canadian people should keep all our participation in a true perspective, and that the perspective should be properly delineated by the Minister of National Defence above all others. On the very same day that the minister was making in Rotterdam that statement which conveyed the impression of the superiority of the Sabre jet, the commander of the United States air force was making a statement in Washington which is something that should be in the minds of everyone if there is any thought of complacency. I quote from an Associated Press dispatch from Washington dated November 21:
The Chinese communist air force has deployed in North China and Manchuria about 1,500 planes, approximately one-half of which are MIG-15 jet fighters. The MIG "in many respects can outperform our own F-86"; it has outclimbed the best airplanes that have been tested against it and performed in combat at altitudes approaching 50,000 feet.
The MIG can fly "at speeds in excess of the speed of sound."
That isi a quotation from an Associated Press dispatch from Washington on the same day as the other statement was made in Rotterdam. The reliability of these statements of the Minister of National Defence with regard to matters of defence assumes increasing importance; and I submit that the points of privilege which were raised in this house in respect of the statements as to policy and
94699-82J
North Atlantic Treaty
to commitments have not been answered by the Prime Minister, although I am sure the Prime Minister has fully interpreted the statement made to him by the Minister of National Defence. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is still much to be explained to this house as to why the Minister of National Defence was making statements of that kind in Europe, when the elected representatives of the people have not had an opportunity to pass on those extremely important decisions.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not going to attempt any controversy on the accuracy or otherwise of the statements I received from the Minister of National Defence as contrasted with statements which have appeared in dispatches in the press. I obtained this information from the Minister of National Defence. I take it to be accurate, and I am putting it before the house as such.
With respect to the construction of barracks, I am afraid that the leader of the opposition did not read the whole of this clipping or dispatch from The Hague of November 20. In it there is this statement:
In a talk with reporters aboard an RCAF plane which flew him swiftly on a three-stop flight around western Europe, the minister said the barracks will be built by Germans, the w'ork to start in the next few months and be completed late next year.
It is Canada's hope that a way can be found to prevent the Canadian government from becoming a land owner in Germany, that is, that this would become part of her contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization without remaining Canadian property.
It seems to me that that is quite in line with our expectation that we are going to have to provide our share of the cost of construction but that it is no part of our policy to become owners of military establishments in continental Europe.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to extend this discussion because there is, of course, a much more extensive report than has been referred to by either of us. But I would point out with reference to that particular point that the minister has made a definite statement there, if the report is correct, that Canada is going ahead to build within the next few months barracks in the Soest area of western Germany and as far as the minister's statement goes it is the expressed hope that through some arrangement still to be made Canada may be able to claim that as part of our contribution under NATO.
That is a very different thing from making a contribution under NATO and having the installation built by NATO and under NATO direction. There has as yet been neither an announcement of policy in this house nor an opportunity for the members of this house to express any opinion in regard to Canada

Public Works Act
undertaking to construct barracks in Germany or any place else under such arrangements as these. It is not likely that Germany will be the only place that may be under consideration. Before any positive declaration is made that we are going to do certain things within a certain time limit in a certain area, I submit that the statement of policy should be enunciated here and that the members of the house should have an opportunity of passing upon it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The statement of policy will be enunciated here and will not be in the form of newspaper reports of interviews with any individual.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad that the Prime Minister made the statement he has just made, because the whole point that was raised as a matter of privilege was that the members of this house do not want policy to be announced by ministers through the press; they want it to be announced here in this house.



PUBLIC WORKS ACT


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend the Public Works Act.


Mr. Green:: Explain.


Alphonse Fournier: This proposed bill will be consequential on the passing of Bill No. 25, which received first reading yesterday, to provide for the financial administration of the government of Canada, audit of the public accounts and the financial control of crown corporations. Paragraph (c) of section 1 will be amended and subsection 2 of the old act will be deleted to conform with the provisions of the bill I have just mentioned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to provide in the proposed measure to amend the Railway Act, Bill 12, now before the house, that the salaries of the chief commissioner of the transport board and of the other commissioners be increased and that the present chief commissioner be now, and that any subsequent appointee to that office become, on retirement therefrom, an additional puisne judge of the exchequer court.

He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
1950 and 1951
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: In view of the expensive and scurrilous propaganda sheets being sent out by the Vancouver Motor Vehicle Association, copies of which I hold in my hand, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. Can the hon. member give the figures on the sales of motor vehicles in Canada in 1950 and 1951?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of the question, and more than that, when I myself received this scurrilous advertisement I realized that questions would be asked. I must confess that it is in the same class as the Labour-Progressive party publication referred to by the leader of the opposition. The figures I submit illustrate most clearly the weak premise of the advertisement. In the first nine months of 1950, the biggest year of car sales in Canada's history, 331,244 new motor vehicles were sold. In the first nine months of this year, after added taxes and credit restrictions, 320,322 new motor vehicles were sold. As far as value is concerned the total sales by motor vehicle dealers, including sales of cars, parts and services, in 1950 were $1,053 million. In 1951 the figures were $1,294 million.


George Alexander Drew: It might be very helpful if the parliamentary assistant would bring down the 1951 figures up to the date when the new taxes came into effect and afterwards, because that would be more informative.


James Sinclair: I will obtain that. The hon. member did not give notice of that, but I will obtain it for him. The fact of the matter is, as far as dealers are concerned, it is not the effect on their business for one month that they are interested in, but the effect on their business year in and year out. Here is the nine months' business of 1951 as contrasted with nine months' business of 1950.


George Alexander Drew: I think the hon. member is well aware that the advertisement to which he

refers is dealing with the effect of the taxes and restrictions which came in well on in this year.


Mr. Fulton:: When the hon. gentleman is giving the figures-I have no idea what they will show-will he also bring down figures to show the sales in British Columbia, because I understand the advertisement came from the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Association.


James Sinclair: In fairness to the dealers of my own riding and other B.C. ridings, this scurrilous advertisement did not come from the British Columbia dealers but from the Vancouver motor dealers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you bring that down?


James Sinclair: I will be glad to obtain those figures.


Mr. Harkness:: When the parliamentary
assistant is bringing down the information to which he refers, will he also bring down information as to whether the figures given in this advertisement in respect to the amount of federal tax here and in the United States, namely, $450 in Canada and $100 in the United States are correct. If not, what are the correct figures?


James Sinclair: The hon. member had every opportunity to ask that question when the excise tax bill was before the house last spring. My recollection is that he did ask that question.



STORAGE FACILITIES AT CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to repeat fo the Minister of Transport the question that I asked the other day, which he did not answer owing to the fact, as- he said, he had no representations at the time. Has the government any plans for the enlargement of the facilities for grain handling at the port of Churchill, in view of the representations now in the hands of the government from the interprovincial farmers' union council?


Lionel Chevrier: If my recollection serves me rightly, I have received a letter from some union in Saskatchewan. Before I reply to the question I should like to read the letter more carefully than I have because I received it only this morning. When I have read it perhaps I shall be in a better position to reply to the question.
Inquiries of the Ministry TOBACCO



INQUIRY AS TO PRESENTATION OF INTERIM BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I recognize that he cannot go into too much explanation, since I have not given- him notice of it. In view of the rumours started by certain circulars affecting the tobacco industry of this country, is there any intention of introducing what might be called an interim or "baby" budget during this session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there is no such intention.



CANADA LANDS SURVEYS ACT


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 14, respecting the surveys of public lands of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases in the rates of pension for disability and for death under the act.


Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to make any further statement now?


Hugues Lapointe: It is not my intention to make a statement at this stage. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that any statement I would make at this stage would be nothing else but a repetition of the announcement which I made on November 16, on which occasion I gave a broad outline of the increases which were proposed in- the legislation which would follow this resolution. It is my understanding that this announcement, generally speaking, did meet with the approval of all hon. members in this house, of the veterans of Canada, and of their national organizations, and I would hope we would go through the stages of this resolution without any further debate.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the
minister for his statement I have just a few words to say with reference to the resolution.

Pension Act
I think the minister is correct in saying that there was general approval of his statement not only in the house, but throughout the country. As a matter of fact I have heard few statements in this house which received so much approval as the statement which the minister made. We all welcomed his announcement to the effect that there would be an increase in the basic rate of pension. As I pointed out after the statement was made the other day, we have waited long for this increase in the basic rate-waited nearly a year. I think the general approval indicated throughout the house and country was of the fact that, after a year of waiting, the government has realized that this has to be done, and that the matter is being attended to.
I should like to read an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of November 20 which, I think, expresses well the general reaction throughout the country. It says:
Seldom has the government taken a step that met with such general approval. All the opposition parties in the Commons have been urging that disabled veterans should have higher pensions, and the veterans organizations have pointed out that the old pension rates were totally inadequate in this period of inflated prices. Nobody disputes the proposition that the state has a special responsibility to those who are maimed, or lost their health, in its defence.
I think that states fairly and correctly the general attitude regarding this increase in the basic rate of pension.
I would also congratulate at this time the different veterans organizations throughout the country. I noticed that in his remarks the other day the minister said that it was after reviewing the situation and considering recent representations of the veterans organizations that the government had come to this conclusion. I know from my own personal experience that the veterans throughout Canada have worked long and diligently to have this change brought about.
I suggest, too, as is mentioned in the editorial I read, that the different opposition parties in the house deserve congratulations on the splendid effort they have made to bring about this increase in the basic rate of pension. Anyone who will take the trouble to read again the report of the activities of the last veterans committee will see that, from the very outset, from the very first meeting, day after day and meeting after meeting, opposition members on that veterans affairs committee pleaded with government members and with the government to have this matter of basic pensions reconsidered with a view to having an increase in the amount.
As I have said on former occasions, we were greatly disappointed when the matter was
[Mr. Brooks.1
not attended to at the last session of parliament. The government's action is now obvious. It has done the only thing it could do. I am sure there is no fair-minded man either in the house or outside it who could have contemplated doing less than has been done. The present suggestion by the minister that there should be an increase is certainly the correct one. And when we take into consideration the greatly increased cost of living in Canada, and the fact that this is the basis upon which the increase in pension is being granted, we realize at once that the matter should have been attended to long before this.
I should like to say a word concerning the unemployability supplement, known as item 650 in last session's estimates. In his statement the other day the minister said that the unemployability supplement had served a most useful purpose, and afforded an opportunity for getting valuable information. Yes, it has served a most useful purpose. It has served the purpose of indicating to the government that the veterans, the returned soldiers of this country, will not stand for any change in the fundamental principles of the Pension Act.
The unemployability supplement was a new departure, in that it introduced the principle of need in place of right. I hope that never again will such a principle be introduced in the pension legislation of this country. The minister is quite correct when he says that its introduction has served a useful purpose, because it has indicated to the people of Canada a most unfair way of treating veterans. He has also said that its introduction afforded very valuable information. Well, it afforded information to his department, just as it did to the house, that the veterans across Canada were one hundred per cent opposed to the principle of the introduction of the unemployability supplement, as set out in item 650.
In meetings of the committee last session it was pointed out time and again that the unemployability supplement was a most unfair and unjust principle. We considered it the most unfair and unjust principle that had ever been introduced into Canadian legislation.
One would have a short memory indeed if he did not remember the proceedings in the last special committee. I shall not review them to any extent this afternoon, except to point out again that when the motion to approve item 650 was brought before the special committee on May 31 of this year it was moved by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll)

that item 650 in the supplementary estimates carry and be reported. As an amendment I moved:
That item 650 do not now carry but that this committee request the house that it be given instructions to consider the basic rates of pensions and the War Veterans Allowance Act and make recommendations in reference thereto.
If that amendment had been accepted in the veterans committee last May there would have been ample time to have brought forward the legislation now being presented to the house, and the pensioners would not have had to wait this length of time to receive their just dues.
I might explain that when the amendment was put, twelve voted in favour of it and eighteen against. Every member of the opposition parties on the committee, together with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), supported the amendment, and every government member, with one exception, voted against it. It does seem a bit inconsistent when we see those very men, who had the opportunity at that time to correct what I say was a great wrong, applauding the legislation placed before the house a few days ago. Last May they could have given the veterans what they asked for and what they were entitled to.
When the bill is before the house, and we have an opportunity to discuss it, I shall have something further to say. There is however one further point I should like to make, which flows from the fact that, as I said a moment ago, we have waited too long for this legislation. In a statement the other day the minister said that the increase in pensions would become effective on January 1. As we have pointed out, January 1 will be just about the middle of our winter. Veterans already have had to provide themselves with fuel, clothing and other necessities in preparation for winter. I hope that when this legislation is brought down the increase will be made retroactive so that these men may be better able to pay their bills and meet the rigours of the winter.
Another situation concerns the small pensioner. As has been mentioned in this house on different occasions, the small pensioner who because of ill health or other reasons is not able to supplement his income is awarded a war veterans allowance. We all know that there is a ceiling on the war veterans allowance of $610 for the single pensioner.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does this bill refer to war veterans allowances?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, Mr. Speaker, it refers to pensions; but my point is that the pensioner
Pension Act
who is in receipt of a war veterans allowance will be handicapped. I do not know how we can discuss it at this time but I do submit that the increase given to a man in receipt of a war veterans allowance should not reduce the amount of that allowance because of the ceiling at present on the earnings of a recipient of war veterans allowance.


Hugues Lapointe: On a point of order, I have no objection to the hon. member expressing his views, but I submit he should keep within the rules of the house. Any reference to war veterans allowances on a resolution having to do with the Pension Act is completely out of order. The matter the hon. member is trying to discuss comes under the War Veterans Allowance Act and has nothing to do with this legislation.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order which has been raised; by the minister, I would; point out that we are discussing a resolution in these terms:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases in the rates of pension for disability and for death under the act.
Surely we are in order in suggesting that the bill should contain a provision that any increase in pension shall not have the result of cutting down the war veterans allowance. I submit that we are perfectly in order in asking that there should be a section in the bill to that effect. If we are to be prevented from making any suggestions of that kind we will not be able to deal fully with the pension question. As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible to bring in an amendment to a resolution, as Your Honour has ruled earlier in the session, but I submit that we certainly are in order when we suggest that there should be a section in this amendment to the Pension Act providing that any increase in a veteran's pension shall not have the result of reducing his war veterans allowance.


Mr. Knowles:: May I say a word on the point of order. I feel that the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) is the correct position. I realize that it is a difficult point on which Your Honour will have to rule because on the face of it the point raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) looks like one that will have to be considered. The minister suggests that when debating the Pension Act we should not discuss the War Veterans Allowance Act. Even though I might want to do so, I agree that that would be out of order at this time.
However, we now have before the house legislation that proposes to increase the amount of the disability pension that certain

Pension Act
veterans will receive and I submit that we have the right to discuss other things that will determine whether or not he will get that increase. As I understand it, the point which the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) is seeking to make is that some veterans will not get any benefit from the increase in the disability pension beoause of the ceiling under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Hugues Lapointe: That is in the War Veterans Allowance Act, not this act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That ceiling provision is in that act, but its effect will be felt by veterans drawing disability pensions as provided by this act. I submit that Your Honour would be in order in telling us that we cannot now discuss the War Veterans Allowance Act generally; I submit also that Your Honour would be in order in telling us that we cannot during this debate propose any increase in the war veterans allowance; we shall have to do that on another occasion. But I submit that you should permit us to discuss the effect of the ceiling imposed by the other act on veterans who are supposedly going to get an increase under the measure now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be able to settle this matter. I do not think there is a great deal of difference among hon. members at this time. We all agree that the legislation before us has to do with pensions, that it has nothing whatever to do directly with the War Veterans Allowance Act. May I point out also to hon. members that there is an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne dealing directly with the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I did not take from what the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) said that he was going to discuss the War Veterans Allowance Act at this time. The point has been raised that if a pensioner receives an increase in his pension there will be a reduction in the amount he receives under -the War Veterans Allowance Act. The suggestion is that the amount received under the War Veterans Allowance Act should not be reduced. Is that not a matter which should come up when the War Veterans Allowance Act is being amended?


Howard Charles Green: It could be put in the Pension Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt if it could be put
in the Pension Act; it seems to me that that is an amendment which would have to be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I think that all members will agree that a passing reference to the War Veterans Allowance Act should be permitted as long as

there is no debate or discussion on that particular legislation. I do not think that a definite ruling is necessary at the present moment, but I would ask hon. members not to debate the War Veterans Allowance Act at this time and to make any reference to that act as brief as possible.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thoroughly understand your ruling and suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I might say that in the discussion we have had on the point of order the point I was trying to make has been brought out and I do not see any necessity of saying anything more. The men who need an increase in pension most are those in receipt of war veterans allowances, and they are the men who will not get consideration. I had hoped that there would be an amendment to the act which would cover those particular cases. However, we can deal with that when the bill is before the committee.
There is another point I wish to make in connection with dependent parents. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked a question about this the other day and the minister stated that a dependent parent did not receive a pension under the act as of right but under an award by the commission after a means test. That is correct. There is a ceiling on the pension granted dependent parents and I think that might very well be dealt with in the bill to be presented. As a matter of fact the minister suggested that we should wait until we had the bill when we would know what was the attitude of the government I took it from that that there probably would be an amendment in the bill covering dependent parents. I do not think there is anything further I wish to say at this time. I repeat that opposition members are very pleased indeed that this legislation is being brought down, as are the people of the country. However, I should like to say to the minister and to the government that I think it would have come with much better grace if it had been granted a year ago. Whether or not they believe it, there is a feeling throughout this country-and I think it is just- that the government has been dragooned into this action particularly by Legion organizations throughout the country, by public opinion and also by opposition members of the House of Commons.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: should like to say a word or two with respect to this legislation. I have the greatest admiration for the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) who served not only in the first war but in the second war with the greatest of distinction. I know that at heart he wants to do the best he can on behalf of the

veterans, but I regret that possibly partisan politics are being brought into the matter. So far as the veterans of my province are concerned, we want to see justice done to them without worrying about who gets the credit, which party, which individual or which province. I am sorry that partisan politics have been introduced into the discussion by a member for whom I have the greatest respect, knowing how he has served his country in two great wars.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was merely stating the facts; that is all.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Sometimes they do not like them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think my record in the veterans affairs committee will show where I stand so far as my fellow veterans are concerned. I have not always agreed with members of my own party or with those in the opposition, but in so far as my stand is concerned I am perfectly willing to rely on my record. I think we should forget political advantage. Some people should be satisfied. I have forgotten the exact phrase but I think it is "sufficient unto the day". "Sufficient unto yesterday" should satisfy them enough for one day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is just a beginning.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let us not worry about politics with respect to this matter.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: May I correct the quotation? "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof".


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was not referring to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray).


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He is
improving it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We have accomplished a great deal through the efforts of the veterans affairs committee on which I had the privilege of serving. As I have stated before that committee and in the house, I believe that is mainly due to the great efforts and influence of the Canadian Legion throughout the Dominion of Canada. Let us try to build it up and not tear it down. I agree with one thing the hon. member for Royal said. I am not allowed to refer to a certain type of pension, and I do not want to be called to order. I have been here since 1940, I have never yet been out of order, and I do not want to be now. You can imagine what I might like to say about certain other legislation. I should like to say to the minister that it is not clear in my mind-and I think I am in order-what the situation is with respect to dependent parents, and I would 94699-83
Pension Act
also link with that compassionate awards to mothers and wives. I think these two classes should be taken into consideration, because of the increase in the cost of living, in exactly the same way as other pensioners.
I believe the pension should be made retroactive. Whatever the advantage may be, it definitely should be made retroactive. As the hon. member from Labrador-for Royal, an outpost of Canada where there is cold weather, and I admit it is far colder there than in other parts-said, this is the time of year when those on small pensions need assistance if they need it at all. As I understood the announcement of the minister- and I want to be corrected if I am wrong-I believe the awards are to be made retroactive, and I should like to know to what date. That may have been stated before and if it was I am sorry I did not hear it.
One thing with which I cannot agree is the unemployability supplement. However, as I understood the minister-and surely this is in order because it was announced by the minister himself-it is to be discontinued as from the first of the year. I believe that is correct. As I stated before the veterans affairs committee, it has not worked out satisfactorily in my own province. The officials in charge there have been most fair about the matter. If I remember correctly, we estimated we would have 780 recipients, and the last I heard we had approximately 1,400 applicants. It did not work out in the rural districts although it may in urban centres. I understand it is to be discontinued as from the first of January. There is one thing I want to know for purposes of information only. Is it correct that those who have been in receipt of it temporarily will continue to receive it up to the first of January? Accepting the correction of the hon. member for Cariboo, let us not drag politics into the matter. We have had an assurance from the minister on behalf of the government and I thought his statement was very fair. The Legion asked for 33J per cent but they are getting more than that. I am not allowed to mention that other matter but I will take it up at the next session of parliament inasmuch as I have been assured-and the minister nods his head in agreement- that legislation will be introduced to correct the abuse so far as that other group of pensioners is concerned. The minister agrees that legislation will be brought down to provide for them properly and it will be made retroactive to the first of January.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this an announcement of government policy?

Pension Act


George Alexander Cruickshank: After what happened yesterday anybody can announce anything, but I believe that is what is going to happen.


Howard Charles Green: Don't lose heart.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Don't take it to heart so much.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will announce the policy with respect to what is going to take place in Toronto tomorrow. The west will show the east where the sun rises and sets. I am very proud of my association with the veterans affairs committee. As I said, I have the greatest admiration for the hon. member for Royal-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mutual.


George Alexander Cruickshank: -but on reflection I think he will agree there is one thing we should not do. If there is one committee that certainly should not be brought into the field of partisan politics it is the veterans affairs committee.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to say a few words on this measure. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases in the rates of pension for disability and for death under the act.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members of this house were delighted with the minister's statement to the house on Friday, November 16. They were happy to know .that at last the government recognized the need of the disability pensioners in this country. I am sure that all hon. members, regardless of the party to which they belong, were relieved to know that the government had finally decided to abandon the supplementary allowance with its employment test, medical test, and in some cases financial means test. I remember when we were sitting in the veterans affairs committee last session there was strenuous opposition on the part of a number of members of that committee to this departure from former Canadian pension principles. I am sure all hon. members are glad to know that the government has returned to the long established principle of the payment of pensions according to disability incurred. By introducing this measure, the government has decided to erase that unfortunate blot on Canadian pension history.
I am sure that all veterans organizations in this country, as represented principally by the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans, must find great satisfaction in knowing that their efforts have borne fruit in this satisfactory government action. In fairness to these representative bodies, we
[Mr. Fulton.)
must say that the government's decision is a tribute to the Canadian Legion and to the National Council of Veterans. It is a tribute to their understanding of the needs of disability pensioners throughout Canada, and to their presentation of the facts. It is a tribute to their arguments supporting the facts, and to their eternal vigilance on behalf of disabled veterans and their dependents in this country throughout the years.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am pleased to know I have the endorsement of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). I know that we on this side always realize that we have the sympathy and support of the hon. member in these veterans matters.
In my opinion the commendable position the Legion has taken is well stated in a recent editorial which I read in a good weekly paper published in British Columbia, the Revelstoke Review. I am going to read a paragraph-


George Alexander Cruickshank: In what riding is that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Revelstoke is situated in the Kamloops riding. I know the editor quite well, and I believe he is a firm supporter of liberal principles. He is a man of considerable balance and good judgment. Unfortunately at the present time he is a member of the coalition-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you speaking of the editor of the Revelstoke Review?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't calumniate the man, because he does not support that party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If I am in error in that, it is because my judgment has been based on the reasonable and progressive nature of his editorials. I am quoting from the Revelstoke Review of Thursday, November 15, 1951. The editorial is entitled "Practical Remembrance". It reads:
Rev. H. S. McDonald, in his remembrance day address in the United Church last Sunday, told his comrades they need to remember the dead; living veterans in need of assistance; and thirdly, their heritage as Canadians. Remembrance day ceremonies in themselves call attention to the many who made the supreme sacrifice, while appreciation of our heritage ought to be inspired by individual common sense. Remembering the needy veterans, on the other hand, calls for positive action and eternal vigilance. . .
In all these matters which are so essential to the welfare of the war veteran, the Canadian Legion has played an outstanding role down through the years. There has been progressive improvement in the treatment of veterans since 1918. although the ultimate has not yet been reached. Had there been no strong body to champion the cause of the needy veteran, it is doubtful if even the most benevolent intentions of our governments would have reached the stage of today s programs.

The Legion makes no unreasonable demands. It is continually on the alert to the legitimate needs of its membership. It remembers the dead by calling attention each November 11th to their sacrifices. It promotes an appreciation of the ideals and traditions inherent in our way of life and for which the dead laid down their lives. It strives daily to ensure better treatment and sympathetic understanding for veterans and dependents in need. In the Legion's activities the general public has a constant reminder of the just debt this country owes those of its ex-servicemen who are unable to fend for themselves. And that understanding on the part of all Canadians is essential to ensure that no ex-serviceman will in the future shuffle off the end of a pier in despair, while his fellow-citizens pay grateful homage on November 11th.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all of us agree with the sentiments expressed in that editorial. In my opinion the writer has stated well the attitude of a great majority of Canadians towards the needs of the veterans of this country, and the necessity for sympathetic consideration from the government. While these organizations now find great satisfaction in the minister's announcement of the government's intention, I am sure there has been great rejoicing amongst the ladies' auxiliaries because they have taken a direct interest in the Legion's proposals concerning an increase in the basic rate of disability pensions and an increase in war veterans allowance. These thousands of splendid unsung women have worked loyally to support their men's proposals. I am sure that they will find great comfort in the knowledge that this legislation is coming before the house.
It interested me to know that the ladies' auxiliaries are particularly appreciative of the work of the opposition in this parliament in supporting the Legion's proposals and those of the National Council of Veterans. I have had indications of that on a good many occasions. It may interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the members of one branch of the ladies' auxiliary in my constituency were so pleased with the efforts of the opposition in this matter that all of them wrote me a personal letter addressed to the Right Hon. Herbert Wilfred Herridge. Possibly that is a trifle premature, but at least it was a kind gesture on their part. I recall receiving a letter from the wife of a pensioner who had apparently just completed listening to one of my broadcasts in the parliament hill series. They are of course always completely objective. She wrote me to this effect: Dear Mr. Herridge: I have just finished listening to your broadcast from parliament hill, and I hasten to put pen to paper. I want to tell you, sir, that whenever I hear your voice on the air I turn down the lights, sit in my easy chair and dream of an increase in the basic rate of disability pensions. Then, she spoke of the day when the opposition would 94699-83J
Pension Act
finally persuade the government to increase the basic rate of the disability pension, and she said: I am sure, sir, after listening to you, that the government will without doubt respond to your pleading.
I am exceedingly glad, Mr. Speaker, that the government has responded to the pleading of the veterans organizations and of Canadians who are interested in this question. This increase in the basic rate of pensions will give great relief to thousands of veterans who have been suffering severely from the increased cost of living. It will be a great thing for many on low pensions, with small incomes, who have been trying to earn a bit on the side in order to keep going, through doing odd jobs and various kinds of work. At this point I think I may be permitted to say that, in order to protect the small pensioner, so that the legislation will mean something to the small pensioner who at the present time is receiving a small pension and a portion of the war veterans allowance, the government should agree to having included in the bill when it comes before the house something to this effect: that no increase in disability pension be considered an increase of income for the purposes of the War Veterans Allowance Act. We in this group suggest that the government give serious consideration to that proposal.
As I have said before, when I am speaking in this house I see not only the resolution, the handsome Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and his intelligent and industrious parliamentary assistant, but I also see the people in the constituency this legislation benefits. I visualize a good number of people whom I know personally who will be affected by this legislation, including many older veterans, and widows. In addition to that, I have already had a good many personal letters which indicate what this resolution means to a large number of people whom I have the honour to represent. We in this group follow our usual policy of commending the government when it deserves commendation; we do not hesitate to do that, regardless at times of our sharp but constructive criticism of government policies. Having said that, however, I must say that while we in this group were pleased with the announcement which has been made, we do not think the government has given complete consideration to all those included under the terms of the Canadian Pension Act. I refer principally to three groups: first, the children of pensioners; second, the dependent parents; and third, the pensioners receiving a compassionate [DOT] pension.

Pension Act
According to the minister's announcement, as to the children of pensioners the increase is to be from $19 to $20 for the first child, and for the other child there is no extra provision. That means only an increase of $1 for the first child of the Canadian pensioner. We think that the government should have had the 33 J per cent increase include all the children of pensioners. These are the children of veterans raising families. I know that Canadians generally want to do everything possible to see that the families of veterans have as good an opportunity as this government and the people of Canada can provide. Therefore we in this group feel that the government should have carried the increase of 33J per cent along so as to increase the amount of pension awarded for the children on that basis. We urge the minister and the government to give further consideration to this matter before the legislation comes before the house.
I now come to the question of dependent parents. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley had something to say on this matter. We believe that this particular group is entitled to special consideration. I have seen some pathetic cases in this group. It includes many a mother who has lost an only son and many a father who has lost an only son. These people have sacrificed not only the earning power of the son or the possibility of support by the son but have sacrificed a great deal of happiness for the sake of this country. Many of these people are living under difficult financial circumstances but, worse than that, they are living without the comfort which would have been brought to them by the children who they naturally expected would be a solace to them in their old age. We believe that some provision should be made for the dependent parents. We should like to hear the minister rise in his place in the house, when the bill comes before us, and say something to this effect:	we intend to
amend the bill so as to make some extra provision for this worthy group of Canadians who have sacrificed more than dollars can repay.
I now want to refer to those who are in receipt of compassionate pensions. We all know that a compassionate pension is paid not as of right but rather on purely compassionate grounds. The very fact that it is paid on compassionate grounds indicates there was need that demanded compassion. According to the statement of the minister there is not any stated increase for those persons receiving compassionate pensions.

We hope that the minister and the government will give consideration to this needy group.


Mr. Mutch:: Will the hon. member permit
a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: When the hon. member speaks of compassionate pensions, is he referring to pensions awarded under section 21 for meritorious service?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. This is a particular
group that, as I said before, have received these pensions on the basis of compassion, and for them we urge further compassion. When the government is doing an excellent piece of work in introducing this 33 J per cent increase generally, with the exception of those classes which I have mentioned, we in this group urge that they complete this legislation and make a good job of it by providing 33J per cent increase for the children of pensioners, by making some extra provision for dependent parents, and by making extra provision for those receiving compassionate pensions.
Previous speakers have suggested making this legislation retroactive. In fairness I think we must admit that there are certain administrative difficulties in connection with giving immediate effect to legislation of this type. As I understood the minister's statement, the first cheques at the new rate would be in the pensioners' hands in early February, 1952.


Hugues Lapointe: During the course of January; the January cheque.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It will be paid in January.
In British Columbia they usually arrive in February. I suggest that the minister and the government give consideration to making the pension payable so that the pensioner receives his first cheque in the first week of the new year. I think that would be a nice send-off for the new year, and will provide some time for the giving by the commission of effect to legislation passed by this house.
Before concluding my remarks, I must once again emphasize the fact that we in this group believe that the Canadian pension commission is doing an excellent job in administrating the Canadian Pension Act. We all think they have done splendid work throughout the years. We hope that the government and the minister will make their task easier and will make this legislation completely satisfactory by including the groups to which I have made reference. I trust that, before this legislation is finally adopted by this house, the government will add these

little extras so that the legislation will then be satisfactory to all veterans on disability pensions and their dependents and to all who have worked for and recognize their need.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: I am going to be very brief in my comments. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Mutch) are in the very happy position of knowing that whenever they bring down any legislation in this house that will improve the position of the veterans they will receive the wholehearted support of the opposition. We in this group are very glad that at this time the government have seen fit to bring down legislation to increase the basic rate of pension without attaching to it any form of means test. Apparently the government now recognize that they made a mistake last session when they tied an increase in the rate of pension to an unemployability test. That was a form of means test, and a very undesirable form. I feel that by bringing down this legislation the government has fully vindicated the stand taken by the opposition members of the veterans committee last session when they opposed the payment of an unemployability supplement as an alternative to an increase in the basic rate of pension.
However, whilst we are strongly in support of this proposed legislation, I would like to point out that there are certain weaknesses in it. There are certain classes of pensioners who will receive no benefits under this legislation. For instance the married pensioner, receiving a pension award of from 20 to 40 per cent, will receive no benefit if he is already receiving a war veterans allowance. In regard to the single veteran, he will receive no benefit if he is receiving an award of from 15 to 30 per cent, if he is receiving the allowance. I have in my hand-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Will the hon. member permit an interruption?


Victor Quelch: Yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I get a little weary of hearing it suggested that when a piece of legislation grants a man entitlement he does not get it under that particular legislation because under other existing legislation it may be taken away again. That is tantamount to saying that some of us do not get any salary because income tax takes it away. So far as this legislation is concerned, what my hon. friend has just said is untrue. The benefits do accrue. What happens to the money afterwards is subject to other legislation, and further discussion, and in complete honesty I think we should stop saying that.
Pension Act


Victor Quelch: The point is I think the hon. member is the last one who should use those words "complete honesty". The test of any legislation is, will the person benefit as a result of that legislation?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: And the answer is yes.


Victor Quelch: That is the only criterion. Can you show an income tax assessment which, as a result of its application, will mean that the taxpayer does not get any benefit from an increase in income? He will always get a slight benefit from an increase in income. As a result of this some pensioners will not receive one cent in additional income. Let me quote from the unemployability supplement chart given to the veteran members the last time the committee sat. We find that a pensioner receiving a 40 per cent award, and who is married, receives a pension of $50 a month. In addition he receives a war veterans allowance of $41.66 a month, making a total monthly income of $91.66, or a yearly income of $1,100. That man will not receive any benefit whatsoever under this legislation, because to the extent that his pension is increased the amount of the war veterans allowance will be decreased.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I do not think anyone-I know the hon. member will not-will question that I am as sympathetic as he is to those recipients of the war veterans allowance, and I have demonstrated it in the past. But I *submit it is not fair for one member to discuss that legislation and some of the rest of us who would like to discuss it be ruled out of order.


Victor Quelch: I am not going to discuss war veterans allowance in any way, shape or form. When Mr. Speaker was in the chair he gave us the understanding that so long as we referred only to the effect that one may have on the other he would not rule it out of order. I am not going to discuss the merits or the demerits of the War Veterans Allowance Act. I will even leave out the words "war veterans allowance" in the future.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On a point of order, I want to keep the record clear. The hon. member for Acadia is always fair.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Where is
Mr. Speaker, anyway?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I beg your pardon. The hon. member who has just spoken has said that he is always humble, and as I said on previous occasions he should be. I was ruled out of order in that connection, and so were several other speakers. I would like to speak on it.

Pension Act


Victor Quelch: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am speaking on the point of order. I was ruled out of order, and I believe the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) was also ruled out of order in the same connection. I would like to speak on the same matter, but it must work both ways. I am not speaking against the hon. member's argument, but I do claim the right to say something along the same line as any other member in the opposition or otherwise.


Victor Quelch: I would again point out that this is exactly the type of reference that the Speaker ruled would be in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I was
in the house when the Speaker made his remarks. He did say that the War Veterans Allowance Act was not now before the house, and that any reference in passing to the War Veterans Allowance Act should be as brief as possible.


Victor Quelch: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the pensioners receiving an award of from 20 to 40 per cent will not receive any benefits as a result of this legislation. When you get down below the pension award of 20 per cent, that is at the 15 per cent level, there will be a partial benefit of $25 per annum. When you get below 15 per cent, from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, the pensioner will then be eligible to receive the full benefits of the pension award; but from 20 per cent to 40 per cent the pensioner will not receive any benefit at all.
In regard to the single veteran, a pensioner receiving an award of from 15 to 30 per cent will not be able to get any benefit whatsoever. Below 15 per cent-


Hugues Lapointe: No benefit under what?


Victor Quelch: Below the 15 per cent they will get the full benefit of the award. In view of the fact that these are men who have very limited incomes, it does seem to me that we should have a section included in the legislation stating that any increase of any pension under this legislation shall not be considered income for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act. That is all I am going to say-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Order. We are back where we started.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is perfectly in order. The only trouble is the government has not put it in the bill.


Victor Quelch: There is one other matter that I should like to refer to, namely dependent mothers. I was sorry to hear the minister say that dependent mothers would not

be eligible for any increase, because it does seem to me that where the mother is solely dependent upon her son, when that son is taken away she should receive the same consideration as the wife receives; I mean where the son is her sole support.
In closing I would say, as I have said in the past, that I believe that in this country generally speaking we have veterans legislation second to none. I think we are also fortunate in having officials who are very sympathetic towards the veterans, and who do not hesitate to bend over backwards in trying to give the full benefit of the doubt in dealing with all matters. I would like to see us at all times endeavour to amend legislation so these officials can give to veterans the greatest possible benefits without having to take a chance on having to bend backward.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just want to add a word. I think, as the previous speaker said, there is the unanimous feeling on this side of the house that in these days when our social conscience is rightly as aroused as it is, and when we are doing so much for other people in the community, these men who have a special claim must not in any degree be left behind. Therefore we welcome what is being done. I should like to endorse what has been said concerning the sympathy of the men in the department. All members of parliament have a good many cases coming to their attention. I have always found the greatest readiness to help on the part of veterans advocates and all others doing similar work.
I think we are most fortunate also in the officers of the Legion because, along with their desire to have everything done for the returned men, they do realize that there are limits, and I believe they try to take a common-sense view and have regard for what is possible as well as what is desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapoinie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Alphonse Fournier: Next sitting.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 15, to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the parliamentary assistant make a statement?


Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on November 8, while at the resolution stage, I made a complete statement. I do not believe I could add anything at this time. It is my understanding that the bill will be referred to the committee on external affairs, so there may be detailed study of all sections.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make only one or two comments. Unfortunately I was not here on November 8 and did not hear the statement made at that time. I have looked at the debate which took place on a somewhat similar motion in 1947. Incidentally, due to the industry of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), there appears on record a point of historical interest which I should like to place on record. He pointed out that-
-the first general law on immunity, as far as Great Britain is concerned, goes back to the reign of Queen Anne. The Russian Ambassador in England having been arrested, strong objection was taken by the Russian government, which resulted in the passing of the diplomatic privileges act of 1708, providing for diplomatic immunities, which has been continued since this time.
I do not imagine there is any question to be raised by any of us in this connection, other than the question as to whether, as time goes on, the number of people covered by these immunities grows and grows. There are one or two points I should like to raise for the attention of the parliamentary assistant. We have a bill containing only two sections and an agreement of some length signed on behalf of Canada, which we are asked to approve. We know of course that in a sense, due to the non-cooperation of Russia, part of the agreement made in 1947 has become nugatory, so far as certain aspects were concerned. Part II of the agreement says, among other things:
The organization may hold currency of any kind and operate accounts in any currency.
Then if we read further we find that not only representatives, that is to say senior
North Atlantic Treaty Organization representatives, but "any representative of a member state"-and I take it that "any" means "any"-shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities, as set out in the following paragraph (f):
(f) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as are accorded to diplomatic personnel of comparable rank.
I mention this only because I think we have known of cases where military and other personnel, who were on their lawful missions in other countries, have indulged in currency operations which were not exactly what was intended by the scope of the agreements.
Without taking more time, because I understand this will be further considered, I would suggest that the agreement be looked at closely; because I suppose as time goes on we may have scores-and, for all I know, even more than that-of people in this country enjoying extraordinary immunities. I suppose it is extremely difficult for any country to be sure of all the attitudes, views and practices of all the people who are going to work for it. One of the points that strikes me is that it is contemplated that the home country, so to speak, may provide a certain number of staff for the organization of a visiting country. In theix cases, of course, immunities are less.
I am suggesting only this, that the whole atmosphere of bringing here a considerable number of people-if there are to be a considerable number-is such that very close scrutiny and a very considerable amount of vigilance ought to be exercised.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Requisitions.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I have to confess some ignorance of what has taken place, due to my absence from the house for some days. However, when the matter was last before us, and I was present, I understood we were to receive a

Public Printing and Stationery Act statement from the minister. Has that statement heen received and discussed? The statement from the minister was to explain why this large amount is in the bill. I am informed the statement has not yet been made, although when the bill was first considered the leader of the opposition as well as representatives of other opposition groups asked for it.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The additional credit being requested under this bill is not in the nature of a grant. It is merely a credit which is authorized by the finance department out of the consolidated revenue fund. As hon. members will realize, the operation of the department is in the nature of a commercial enterprise within the limits of governmental and parliamentary activities. Practically all our work is done either for parliament or some department of government. As I have already said, this credit is not a grant. It has been increased down through the years in accordance with the increases in the prices of materials and labour and the expanding activities following the continuous growth of the nation. Some years ago $700,000 was the limit of the credit; later on it was increased I think to $1,300,000, and later on to $2 million. The increase to $2 million took place in 1946. Since that time Canada has continued to grow more rapidly than ever and as a result the activities of the king's printer have been increasing continually while prices have been advancing enormously, not only for supplies and materials but also for labour.
We find that today the credit of $2 million is short of our requirements by another $2 million. For example, as of yesterday, November 22, we owed our suppliers for materials, paper, et cetera, $2,265,643. To meet our payrolls for salaries, wages and the like we require $160,000. Therefore we are in debt a total of $2,425,643. Our overdraft as at that date in the receiver general's account was $5,590,137. We were owed by various government departments, which we are entitled to deduct, the sum of $3,786,943. If we had been paid those amounts by the various departments-we were not-we would have had an overdraft of only $1,803,194. We are authorized by the act to have an overdraft of $2 million. Therefore, as of yesterday, we had cash available of $196,806 to meet liabilities, which I have set out above, amounting to $2,425,643. Therefore, as of yesterday, we were short $2,229,837. That amount is owing to outside firms for supplies and materials of various kinds, which we cannot pay. For that reason we require a further credit. As I have said before, this is only a credit, not a grant or 

anything of that kind, or roughly $2 million in order to keep our accounts down to a satisfactory maximum.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We recognize that it is not a grant, that it is something in the order of working capital and for that reason it may be necessary. I should like to ask one or two questions. The minister has told us that the accounts payable are something over $2,229,000. I should like to know how long those accounts have been owing. On the other hand he tells us that there is $3,786,000 owing to his department, and I should like to know why that cannot be paid.
I should like to know also whether any real inconvenience is being suffered in carrying on the business as is. If the minister can demonstrate that any loss is being suffered I think we ought to be quick to come to his assistance. On the other hand I think the feeling of this house, which is a salutary feeling in my opinion, is that we should not accept suggestions of this kind too readily. We had a similar suggestion from the board of transport commissioners a year or two ago. They came along and asked for an amount which I recall was cut down considerably with their eventual consent. It is not necessary to go into the details, and indeed I do not remember them all, but they made a case which we went into with them along with the treasury board, and we decided that it was extremely difficult for them to get along with the amount which they had as working capital.
I repeat my questions. I should like to know whether any real inconvenience is being suffered and the reason this large amount of $3,786,000 should be outstanding for any considerable time. From time to time we get little glimpses of what is going on, and we understand there are hundreds of millions of dollars floating around in the air as surplus to what is needed, and just at the moment it does not seem clear why these several departments cannot pay their debts.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is not always easy to get accounts paid by departments as promptly as one would wish. There is frequently a hiatus between the date of the delivery of the goods and the date of payment. It must also be borne in mind that we carry a considerable quantity of what we call work in progress for which no bill has been rendered. We are continuously in debt to the tune of something in the neighbourhood of $2 million. That does not cause any inconvenience to the government, but it does cause inconvenience to the commercial firms supplying us with materials. We feel that we ought to be in position to

keep these accounts down to a reasonable amount. The $2,229,000 is much too large.
It must also be borne in mind that this money is not going out of the control of the government. The money is in the various departments which have received grants of the sums they require to pay us for supplies. They simply pass it to us and we pass it into consolidated revenue. That movement is not fast enough to permit us to pay the outside bills we owe, which I think we should pay at the earliest possible date.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: So do I, but
I still want to know why this $3,786,000 cannot be paid. Can the minister give us a list of the departments that owe money so that we may see why these accounts cannot be settled. Is there any earthly reason why these bills cannot be paid? I presume these government departments are solvent and able to pay their debts, and this amount of $3,786,000 should be paid. If this were private business they would certainly stir things up and get paid because they would not be able to go and ask somebody else for $2 million.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I am not in position to answer my hon. friend's question because I am not familiar with the affairs of other government departments. The only thing I can say is that we have not received the money from them and are continuously in debt to outside suppliers because of that fact. As I have pointed out, this is nothing new. It is not a question of cash getting out of control of the government in any way, shape or form. It is merely a matter of internal arrangement. It seems to have worked out satisfactorily. I cannot give you the details at all because I do not know them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Well, we want them.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I am not able to give them to you.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I agree with the minister it is nothing new, but it is something new that we want. Unless there is some reason against it we want a sensible arrangement whereby this money will be collected. The minister says he does not know why. He has not the details. He cannot give us particulars. I think we should get particulars. For instance, if the Minister of Public Works owes him a lot of money let him pay it. I should like to know who these ministers are who will not pay their debts. Is that not a reasonable suggestion, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause carry?
Public Printing and Stationery Act


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it is not
carried. I am waiting for information, Mr. Chairman. It is not carried; as long as I can stand up it is not carried.


An hon. Member:: That will not be long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For example, can the Secretary of State tell us whether his own department owes any money to the printing bureau?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: At the moment I cannot tell you.


Mr. Lennard:: Surely he should know that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Minister of Public Works tell us whether his department owes the king's printer any money?


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps we do not owe money right now. We are having reports printed, but when the bills come in we generally pay.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How about the other ministers? What about resources and development, and labour? Could we have a statement from them? We might get the other ministers in here and find out why this money cannot be paid. I am quite serious about this. I am sure the Minister of Public Works, who is very co-operative will really agree with me in this matter.


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot answer for the different departments, but if the bills were not paid on time there would be some reason for it. From the public accounts it appears that we do pay all the debts we owe. If you will look at the public accounts which were tabled some time ago I think you will get all the details and information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, no.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me ask
the Minister of Public Works this question. If he finds he owes money to the king's printer will his department be able to pay it right away?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh yes, certainly. The moment the comptroller of the treasury authorized payment of a bill a cheque would be issued.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister communicate that to the Secretary of State and suggest that is the way to get the money?


Alphonse Fournier: The Secretary of State knows how they get the money because the business of that department has grown to such an extent that the revolving fund does not seem sufficient. In his statement he
1292	HOUSE OF
Public Printing and Stationery Act mentioned that they owed over $2,200,000. That means we have to come back to parliament and ask that the revolving fund be increased. As the hon. member knows, this is working capital. I do not know if all these details of every bill outstanding should be laid before the house, because they probably appear in the public accounts. I am not too sure, but I would believe that in the public accounts these bills appear as paid or unpaid.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As the minister knows, I am always a man who wants to facilitate business as much as I can, but it seems to me at the moment we are in this position. We have asked questions which I hope are more or less reasonable, and they have not been answered. So far as I have been able to grasp, no reason has been given as to why that $3,700,000 cannot be collected, and it might be good for all concerned if it were collected. I do not know why these things should be allowed to ride along. If the departments got into the habit of paying each other promptly maybe they would get into the habit of paying individuals likewise, and that would be good for all concerned. I think we should have evidence as to whether the king's printer or the department, whoever looks after it, have made a real effort to collect the $3,700,000. It should not be allowed to pass until we have the information.


Alphonse Fournier: As we have the king's printer in the house I suggest that he can probably supply the details and information.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I should like to point out that work for the various departments is continually going on. It is not a question of doing a particular job for a department and then immediately getting paid for it. Before that one is paid there is another, and then another and another. It is going on all the time. That is the difficulty.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That ought to be a great help. That just shows what good customers they are. They ought to be able to have the money coming in every day. There is no difficulty about it that I can. see.


Frank Exton Lennard: You cannot get a bill paid if you do not render it.


Mr. McCann:: You do not pay until you get your goods.


Frank Exton Lennard: You do not have to. There is no expense to the department until they deliver the goods.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It should also be remembered that, according to the statement I have already made, we have given credit for the
[Mr. Fournier (Hull) .1

amount the departments owe us, and we still find ourselves short two million and a quarter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, he is
owed $3,700,000, and he only owes about $2,400,000. If he got his money in he would have $1,300,000 in the bank.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me the Secretary of State and the Minister of Public Works have not yet understood the question we are putting to them. We want some information about the $3,700,000 the departments owe to the king's printer. The goods have surely been delivered and the bills rendered. It would seem a perfectly fair and proper question that we be given some examples of some of the departments that owe money, how long it has been owed and why it has not been paid.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Here is a man who knows all about printing saying that too.


Mr. Fair:: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you dispense with the services of some of the lawyers, get an accountant and you will probably get somewhere.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Which class are you putting me in?


Alphonse Fournier: I have in my hands a statement of the king's printer, where it is mentioned that as of a certain date there was owed to suppliers for paper, materials and so forth, $2,265,643. To meet the payroll for salaries and wages, $160,000 is needed. Therefore a total of $2,425,643 is owed. To meet the above debts there is an overdraft in the receiver general's account of $5,590,137. I do not know if that figure was given before, but it is in this report. The king's printer is owed by other government departments the sum of $3,786,943 comprising current accounts and work in process. If the king's printer were paid by these departments there would then be an overdraft of $1,803,193. What we are asking for at this stage of the proceedings is an increase of $2 million in the revolving fund. If we were authorized under this measure to have that $2 million we would then have cash available of $196,807. If you want a list of every department that owes money to the king's printer on current accounts, work in process and invoices not yet addressed to the departments, it would be quite a job to procure that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That raises another question. I am sorry to be so hard to convince. We are told now that there is an overdraft of $5,590,000. We are told that

the amount owing is $2,265,000, plus something for wages. Let us hear how that overdraft is built up. What does that represent? Is that a loss or how is it built up, and over what period has it been built up?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Possibly this may throw a little light on the subject. First, as I have already pointed out, the costs of both material and labour have gone up substantially in the last four or five years. In addition to that we have to keep larger stocks on hand all the time by reason of the increased activities of the government. With the increased stocks that we have and the increased price of those stocks, plus the fact that we have to buy substantially in advance-in some cases suppliers require six months in order to make deliveries-our inventories are built up.
I should like to draw to the attention of the committee one or two facts in connection with these increased costs. The increase in the cost of stationery amounts to about 50 per cent. The volume of our stationery stocks has increased from roughly $190,000 in 1946 to about $880,000 today, an increase of nearly 30 per cent. The increase in paper printing stores was from $482,000 to $760,000, an increase of 60 per cent. Our wages have gone up from $1 per hour to $1.65 per hour, an increase of 65 per cent. Members of the committee will recall that our inventories have gone up by 50 per cent during that period. Ini 1946 the inventory amounted to $1,041,631, and in 1951 to $2,219,000, an increase of over 100 per cent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That goes some distance towards explaining it. I admit that we are gradually getting more light on it. I still feel we have only got the story in bits and pieces. So far as I am concerned I think we should have a clear picture of the whole business. Nothing has been said yet which satisfies me as to this $3,700,000; nothing has been said to satisfy me why that amount needs to be outstanding. I shall admit quite frankly that if this passes now I shall not fully understand the position. I believe I am entitled to understand it. As I say, the story has been dug out in bits and pieces this afternoon. I suggest that this section stand until we get a clearer view of the whole position. The minister has explained part of the overdraft by saying his stock in trade is much higher than it was, but so far as 1 can see there is nothing to tie those figures up as yet.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: May I also point out that work in process, for which we cannot collect until it is completed, amounts to $2,394,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is any of that included in the $3,700,000?
Public Printing and Stationery Act


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I feel it is not proper to let this pass without the house having before it more information concerning what it is asked to act upon. I submit that if one looks at the record, unless he has a genius which I do not have, he will not know what the story is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to support the position taken by the hon. member for Greenwood, that this matter should stand over until we have a more complete explanation. I believe there is another point that has come out which has not yet been made clear. As I listened to the figures given by the two ministers it seemed to me that the position as of yesterday showed a shortage of less than $2 million. When those figures were all added up, the overdraft-


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is slightly more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister gave the overdraft with the receiver general, and set against that the accounts receivable and the cash on hand and came up with a figure of $1,700,000 or something like that.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is $1,803,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; and as it now stands the terms of the statute allow an overdraft of $2 million. As of the moment that seems to be sufficient. The net position as of yesterday is an overdraft of $1,803,000, and by the act as it now stands you are permitted to have a $2 million overdraft, while the bill before us asks that we allow a shortage of up to $4 million.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No, Mr. Chairman; the shortage, if I may put it that way, was $1,803,000, against which we have a revolving fund of $2 million. That leaves us with a balance in cash on hand of $196,000. As against that we owe to outside firms $2,425,000, so we are short on our accounts to our suppliers to the extent of $2,229,000.
As I have already pointed out, it must be borne in mind that this is not a case of isolated items for various departments, one now and one some other time. This is something that is going on all the time, month in and month out. Presumably the departments are paying monthly-I do not know that- but moneys are coming in every day. However, there is always a new account sent in immediately, perhaps before the one which went in a few days ago has been paid; so that in point of fact there is always work being delivered and work being completed. As fast as one account is paid, perhaps faster, another one is incurred. It is for that reason that this amount of $3 million odd is always outstanding.

Public Printing and Stationery Act
I should like to point out that this amount of $2 million was authorized in 1946 to be used by the king's1 printer as a revolving fund. It is to enable him to purchase stationery and printing material, and to operate an establishment for the processing of printing and stationery when requisitioned to do so by parliament and various departments. The department must encumber in advance in favour of the king's printer sufficient funds to cover each purchase requested. The department of public printing and stationery operates practically at cost, and the cost of the printing and stationery requirements which the king's printer is authorized to deliver each year to parliament and the departments must not exceed the total amount of money voted each year by parliament for its own services and for all the departments, not including the advance account of $2 million authorized for use by the king's printer as a revolving fund only. As I say, that is capital, and after all it only amounts to 25 per cent of the annual turnover.
Moneys paid to him by parliament and the departments for stationery and printing which he delivers to them are used by the king's printer to pay for stationery and printing he purchases from outside firms-because he does not do all the printing himself-or which he processes in the printing establishment of the department, and to replenish that portion of his revolving fund which he uses from day to day for his purchases or the processing of stationery and printing so that at the end of the fiscal year the revolving fund is still intact, whether it is in the hands of the king's printer or in the inventories of the department.
The amount of $2 million authorized by the amendment to the act in 1946 has proved to be insufficient, and these are the detailed reasons:
1.	The increase in cost of stationery articles.
2.	The necessity of increasing stocks of stationery articles due to delayed deliveries.
3.	The increase in the volume of stationery required by departments.
4.	The necessity of keeping larger stocks of paper due to the difficulty of getting ready deliveries from the mills.
5.	The increase in wage rates for printers and administrative officers in the department.
6.	The increase in the volume and the cost of printing.
I have already given the percentage increases of the various items. In short, the inventories of the department amounted to $1,041,631 in 1946. The same item in 1951 has advanced to $2,219,021, an increase of over 100 per cent. On account of these radical

increases the amount of $2 million in the advance account of the king's printer has proved to be totally inadequate.
The $2 million advance account is used, as already indicated, for the processing of printing, the purchase of printing and stationery material and the maintenance of printing and stationery stocks. The actual amounts invested at this date under these three items are as follows. Work in process-that is, work actually being done and in various stages of completion-amounts to $2,394,000; stationery stocks amount to $900,000; and printing material in stock amounts to $600,000. That makes a total of $3,894,000.
As the king's printer has only $2 million at his disposal to cover this liability of $3,894,000, he is at this date short $1,894,000- this report was made out a month or so ago- which he now owes to his suppliers of printing and stationery across the country.
The statement generally reflects the position in which the king's printer has found himself in the last fiscal year. The king's printer operates at cost, and his only source of revenue is the eventual repayment by parliament and departments of the amount of $2,394,000 he has spent to this date on work in process for them. This amount will be paid to him only when this work in process is completed and delivered. In the meantime, as his working capital is insufficient, the only recourse, in order to carry on and supply parliament and the departments is, as I have said before, to withhold payment for these supplies.
I have here a list as at various dates in October showing amounts which he owed to firms across the country. Those amounts vary between October 17 and October 29 from $2,218,301 down to $1,840,934. That amount is continuously outstanding and owing by us to firms across the country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It has taken a long time to get this interesting document, and even now it does not answer the chief question that I am still interested in. The minister now says-and I think these were his words-that probably or perhaps the various departments pay their bills monthly. I should like to ask him this question. How much work does he do each month for government departments? Is it $1 million, $5 million, $3,700,000, or what is it?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It would run from $1 million to $1,250,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then we
have about three months' accounts outstanding and unpaid. Obviously payment is not being paid on a monthly basis or anything

like that. I do not like to be the cause of delay; it pains me greatly, but I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee that we still have not been told the whole story. The mere fact that at one time the king's printer obtained $2 million and that costs have gone up does not impress me greatly. Maybe they were following the same easy practice years ago. Maybe they were not making the ministers pay. In those days probably they did not have as good a Minister of Public Works as we have now. But there is no reason in the world why we should not press this matter. This raises an interesting question as to the relations between departments. I am not disposed to let this matter go. I suggest again that we get a clear statement with regard to this matter and that in the meantime this section stand.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I have no
doubt that the information required by the hon. member can be supplied, but it is going to take some considerable time to do it. I should again like to point out that the matter is not so simple as that of monthly statements and monthly payments. For example, we are now printing the revised statutes of Canada. I am advised that we have been at that job for one and a half years. For that work we have as yet received no payment at all, and we presumably shall receive no payment until the job is completed and delivered. There is one case in which it is not a question of payment monthly at all. But we have to carry it month after month. As I have already said, we have carried it for one and a half years already.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Hon. members will have noticed that all the discussion is revolving around subsection 4 of the new section 38, which is section 2 of the bill. The actual clause under consideration is section 1, which has to do with requisitions. I know some latitude is always given to hon. members on the first section. Perhaps hon. members would consent to carrying section 1, which has to do with requisitions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-How expenses shall be met.
Louis-René Beaudoin: This section
creates a new section 38. Perhaps we could take this new section by paragraphs. Is that procedure agreeable to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Subsection 1 of the new section 38 deals with the manner in which expenses are to be met. Are hon. members ready to adopt this subsection?
Public Printing and Stationery Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Subsection 2 of the new section 38 deals with accounting. Is it the pleasure of hon. members to agree to this subsection?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In agreeing, may I point out that as to the three subsections which you are now referring to, Mr. Chairman, there is no change from those subsections as they stand in the act at the present time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Then is subsection 2 agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Subsections 2 and 3 agreed to.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We now come to subsection 4. This is the subsection which the hon. member for Greenwood has asked to be allowed to stand. Perhaps I should refer the hon. member to citation 691 of Beauchesne's third edition. Unless this subsection is to be allowed to stand by unanimous consent, the hon. member will have to move that consideration of the subsection be postponed. If he makes that motion, and as the subsection is before the committee, if there is no agreement on it I will have to put it to a vote.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I just want to reiterate what I have already said. I have asked for information, and it seemed to me a reasonable request. If we may not have that information, then we cannot get it; that is all. I will move that consideration of the subsection be deferred until this information which I have asked for-and I think it was a reasonable request-is available.


Alphonse Fournier: Before we vote on this may I say that as I understand the discussion up to now, there is a sum due by the departments to the king's printer amounting to some $3 million odd as of November 22. The amount varies every day. The detail the hon. member wants is the amount due by the departments to the king's printer showing the change that occurs daily. The accounts are paid regularly. It would be quite difficult and would take a long time to prepare all these accounts, because every time we make a requisition to the king's printer for work to be done it is verified by the comptroller of the treasury, who looks into the account to see if we have that amount of money. Then the amount is encumbered, and cannot be spent otherwise than to pay for the requisition made. That amount is set aside by the comptroller of the treasury, and when we receive delivery of the goods, or the work is performed, an invoice comes in and the comp-

Public Printing and Stationery Act troller of the treasury pays that over to the king's printer, if I understand well the rouage of the procedure.
To answer the question asked by the hon. gentleman would be quite difficult because of the constant change in the amount of those accounts collectible by the king's printer. If the hon. gentleman would let this section pass I am sure the king's printer would open the books to him. He could see all the details. I do not think there is any objection to a member of parliament going into the details, but it would be quite cumbersome to come down here with all the books of the king's printer, with the outstanding accounts and so forth. Perhaps I am not reasonable in this, but that is the way it appears to me; and if it had the same effect on the hon. gentleman we would get this bill through.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think you are very reasonable. I am only sorry that you thought I was unreasonable. I thought I made my motion in very general terms. I certainly did not want to cause a lot of irksome delay, but at the present time we have no picture, I submit, of what is really happening. We know that this department is owed $3,750,000 by other departments. We do not know how the payments are made except they seem to be a bit late. We also know that a little over $1 million in work is done month by month by this department for all other departments. I am frank to say to the Minister of Public Works that as far as I am concerned I would be perfectly satisfied with figures which would indicate in a general way what is happening between this department and the other departments. Anything which would satisfy a reasonable man-I will assume for a moment that I am one-and which would not cause great inconvenience to prepare would satisfy me. It would be in the public interest to have these payments made promptly. It is perfectly obvious at the moment that they are lagging months behind. There may be good reason for that, but up to the moment I have not got it and therefore I am going to let my motion standi.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make this suggestion. I wonder whether or not we could pass this clause and have third reading stand over to a future sitting of the house. In the meantime the Secretary of State might lay on the table of the house a break-down of that $3,700,000 figure as of yesterday, and any other statements in that return which might help to answer the questions that have been asked today.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not think there would be any objection to that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That fails
to cover one thing I have had in the back of my mind. There might be some amount less than $2 million, perhaps $1 million additional, that might be adequate. Nothing has been said yet to indicate that this cannot be done. I certainly do not want to be obstructive. If the Minister of Public Works feels that my request is unreasonable, all right; I will let it stand on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Alphonse Fournier: I thank the hon. member for Greenwood for being co-operative. I think it is reasonable that third reading be delayed for some time. The Secretary of State would have the details as to specified dates and as to the outstanding accounts for work in process which cannot be collected immediately by the king's printer. This return could be made to the house before third reading of the bill.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There is no objection whatever to that. The only thing I would point out is that if this $3,700,000 were paid now we would still need $2 million in order to pay our bills.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not a bit clear.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I have been listening to the discussion, and if anything the hon. member for Greenwood is too reasonable. The minister wants authority to increase the advances by $2 million. In order to have sufficient knowledge to justify giving our approval we should have the information that is asked for. Now is the time for us to have the information with respect to what the departments owe the king's printer. If the different departments owe $3,700,000, that must be up to a certain date or the minister would not have come to us with that amount. We understand that it fluctuates from time to time. Now is the time to have the information, not after the bill is passed, to justify us in approving this legislation. We should also have a statement from the minister as to why the king's printer owes $2 million for supplies. So far as we know they may be owing $1 million too much. Someone in the department may have ordered much larger stocks than are justified. If that is so, there is no warrant for hon. members to increase the credit of the department to the extent of $2 million. That is particularly so if the supplies are very much larger than needed. There may be a lot of dead stock in the department. We should have a statement from the minister as to the standing of

the purchases, whether they are justified in having on hand $2 million worth of goods more than are needed. We should have a statement from the minister clearing up that situation.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the king's printer has some knowledge of his department. I do not think it likely that he is going to carry more stock than he actually needs for the purpose of his department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask one question? Are there any wages unpaid because of this so-called shortage of money?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No wages unpaid, Mr. Chair-
Public Printing and Stationery Act
The Deputy Chairman.:	Subject to the
observations that have been made by the minister and accepted by the hon. member for Greenwood, I understand that clause 2 is carried.
Section 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the house. On Monday we will resume the debate on the address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 4.40 p.m.
man.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 26, 1951